Quick Links

The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.

Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

It's not a slippery slope, because that's how our legal system works. It functions very heavily on precedent.

You might want to read my post again - at no point do I go off into some crazy doomsday scenario. Everything I describe is logical.

Restricting games = restricting protected speech = leading to more precedent for further restricting protected speech. Simple and easy to understand when you're not trying to be "witty".

A slippery slope argument is the last refuge of a scoundrel - there's a bright line between restricting content to minors and restricting content for everybody else, and no reason to think that line will be passed. When it does, courts strike it down - see the 9-0 ACLU v. Reno. The scrutiny doctrines in first amendment law are designed to allow some restrictions without risking overbreadth of restraint.

The question is "why is this needed for video games, but not for movies, music, or books?"

Also, are there any chain retailers that don't have a policy to refuse sale of M rated games to minors?

The issue is enforcement. Movies do get enforced. Kids don't read so books aren't an issue (this is a joke; and now the joke is dead because I had to point it out). But really, books rarely get called in to question, and when they do it is for different reasons (Harry Potter, for example). Music is still in the same shoes as video games, and yet the 80's brought an end to the crying about it.

We need to define what is an acceptable level of "enforcement" here. I know when I worked at Gamestop I carded for M-rated games (with hilarious reactions from some folk). I was carded the last time I bought an M-rated game at Wal-Mart. Do those games get sold to minors? Yes. Do minors get in to R-rated movies? Yes.

I wouldn't mind publishers/distributors stepping up to the plate and penalize retailers that fail to card, which (from my understanding) would be analogous to the way the MPAA enforces ratings. But I do mind the government stepping in here, especially when it singles out one particular medium.

What caused people to stop crying about music, by the way? I think eventually video games will stop being the favored scandal and everyone will just drop it, too.

It is the parents responsibility, not the governments to take care of their children. If your child is playing video games, then have a fucking clue, and do some research on the games they want to play. The argument that parents are bumbling idiots just doesn't hold. It takes maybe 5 minutes to google, and look at screen shots and gameplay videos.

See, I would agree with that, if it was the parents responsibility to ensure the children are old enough to own guns, drive, smoke, and drink.

Parents are bumbling idiots, regardless of how easy it is to figure this stuff out.

Yet guns, cars, cigarettes, and alcohol all have immediate heath affects, like death (except in the case of cigarettes). Besides this, guns, alcohol, tobacco, and cars do not convey ideas like a game does. It's not possible to transmit a message in a carton of cigarettes, a bottle of beer, a gun, or in a car physically. Games have this ability, therefore it is considered a form of speech, and thus constitutionally cannot be restricted.

I think the key point here is that the bill is going to arbitrarily restrict the sale of a form of speech/artistic expression without first going through the due diligence of proving that it is detrimental to the minors it is supposedly protecting.

Republican Lee Terry and Democrat Jim Matheson have introduced a bill into the U.S. House of Representatives which would require all video game retailers to make identification checks on those buying video games intended for adults.

According to a Variety report, the proposed Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act would require ID checks for any game rated M for mature or AO (adults only) and would also require stores to prominently display explanations of the existing ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) ratings system. Failure to comply in either case would result in a $5,000 fine.

Terry is optimistic that the act will not fall foul of first amendment concerns because it does not attempt to rate or define the content itself, but instead legally enforce the existing age ratings. The bill has already gained support from the Parents Television Council.

â€œThe images and themes in some video games are shocking and troublesome. In some games, high scores are often earned by players who commit â€˜virtualâ€™ murder, assault and rape,â€ said Terry.

â€œMany young children are walking into stores and are able to buy or rent these games without their parents even knowing about it. Many retailers have tried to develop voluntary policies to make sure mature games do not end up in the hands of young kids, but we need to do more to protect our children,â€ he added.

I've seen a lot of gamers say they support this, and I don't understand why. I couldn't be more against it. It's such a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. I mean, it's not like the 1st Amendment has unclear wording, or a gray area or something. It's perfectly, brilliantly clear:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You can't restrict speech! Ever! In any way! If you do support this, please tell me how morally you can possibly think it's a good thing to have government deciding what speech may be consumed by individuals, and how you think it's constitutional in light of the 1st Amendment.

ROFL, are you trolling? There's all sorts of jurisprudence about when and how you can regulate speech under the First Amendment. Society has an interest in not warping it's children - whether or not you think playing GTA4 is going to have a negative effect on a ten-year old isn't the issue, it's whether you can restrict speech to protect children. Similarly, a parent can exercise control over his or her children.

We regulate political speech a heck of a lot more - look at campaign finance laws. Given that an ID check doesn't actually keep adults from buying software, it's a pretty weak restraint.

A parent exercising control is TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THIS. Why would the 1st Amendment prevent parents from exercising any kind of control they want? It only applies to the government. In fact, that's the whole point. Parents should be paying attention to this, parents should be restricting speech for their kids, parents should watch what their kids are doing. Parents should do this, instead of demanding that the government use force to do so.

Because if you can't enforce restraints on sale at the game store, then you completely undermine parent's right to control what media they consume. Unless you want them to GPS-tag the child or never let them out of their sight, it's hard to see what they're doing all the time - which suggests they'll be playing GTA4 anyway, but that's no the issue here.

ACLU v. Reno, the case that struck down the Communications Decency Act as an overbroad restriction on speech, relied on Ginsberg, a case examining this very issue - restricting the sale of content to minors. Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629.

Ginsberg at 639: The statutory scheme can help parents control what controversial content their children see:The wellbeing of its children is, of course, a subject within the State's constitutional power to regulate, and, in our view ... constitutional interpretation has consistently recognized that the parents' claim to authority in their own household to direct the rearing of their children is basic in the structure of our society.

"It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder."
Prince v. Massachusetts, supra, at 321 U. S. 166. The legislature could properly conclude that parents and others, teachers for example, who have this primary responsibility for children's wellbeing are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid discharge of that responsibility... Moreover, the prohibition against sales to minors does not bar parents who so desire from purchasing the magazines for their children.

Second, the state itself has an interest in protecting children, at 640: "While the supervision of children's reading may best be left to their parents, the knowledge that parental control or guidance cannot always be provided and society's transcendent interest in protecting the welfare of children justify reasonable regulation of the sale of material to them."

My question would be, where does that stop? The idea of what is objectionable, what is obscene, what is a bad idea, etc differs from parent to parent. There are many parents who think that exposure to evolution is a bad influence on their kids, parents who think exposure to any religion other than their own is a bad influence, parents who think that junk food is a bad thing for kids to have, parents who think that any kind of obscenity is bad, parents who think that their kid seeing commercials of any kind will brainwash them. The US is a huge melting pot of ideas and they can't all be enforced by law.

The same arguments apply to all these things. Parents think they are bad ideas, but they can't be around 24/7 to prevent exposure of their kids to them. Should all of these be enforced by law?

I'm all for this. I don't see why people are claiming that it somehow restricts free speech when it does no such.

Please explain how the government telling people whose speech they may and may not consume does not limit free speech.

But it's not preventing people from "consuming speech". A kid can't buy a M rated game but he can still get it through his parents without any negative repercussions.

Are you 16 btw? Ashamed of bringing your mommy along to buy a game? Awwwwwww.

I'm 20, but if you want to make a mature argument instead of embarrassing yourself next time you're welcome to join the actual discussion that's going on.

But actual discussion has you continuing saying retarted things, so I had to aim lower. Doesn't change the thing I said before saying the retarded stuff. No one is actually prevented from viewing anything. You can still go to the store and buy the game for your kid and you won't be fined. The parents still have the final word on what their kids can view/listen/play even with this government policing.

It is the parents responsibility, not the governments to take care of their children. If your child is playing video games, then have a fucking clue, and do some research on the games they want to play. The argument that parents are bumbling idiots just doesn't hold. It takes maybe 5 minutes to google, and look at screen shots and gameplay videos.

See, I would agree with that, if it was the parents responsibility to ensure the children are old enough to own guns, drive, smoke, and drink.

Parents are bumbling idiots, regardless of how easy it is to figure this stuff out.

Yet guns, cars, cigarettes, and alcohol all have immediate heath affects, like death (except in the case of cigarettes). Besides this, guns, alcohol, tobacco, and cars do not convey ideas like a game does. It's not possible to transmit a message in a carton of cigarettes, a bottle of beer, a gun, or in a car physically. Games have this ability, therefore it is considered a form of speech, and thus constitutionally cannot be restricted.

Uh...it is very possible to transmit a message in a carton of cigarettes or a bottle of beer - it's called product advertising and trade dress. That's why we restrict how people that sell cigarettes and alcohol can market their products. That's RESTRICTING COMMERCIAL SPEECH. You ever heard of Joe Camel?

It is the parents responsibility, not the governments to take care of their children. If your child is playing video games, then have a fucking clue, and do some research on the games they want to play. The argument that parents are bumbling idiots just doesn't hold. It takes maybe 5 minutes to google, and look at screen shots and gameplay videos.

See, I would agree with that, if it was the parents responsibility to ensure the children are old enough to own guns, drive, smoke, and drink.

Parents are bumbling idiots, regardless of how easy it is to figure this stuff out.

Yet guns, cars, cigarettes, and alcohol all have immediate heath affects, like death (except in the case of cigarettes). Besides this, guns, alcohol, tobacco, and cars do not convey ideas like a game does. It's not possible to transmit a message in a carton of cigarettes, a bottle of beer, a gun, or in a car physically. Games have this ability, therefore it is considered a form of speech, and thus constitutionally cannot be restricted.

Well cigarette companies used to convey that people who smoked cigarettes were much cooler than the average joe.

It's not a slippery slope, because that's how our legal system works. It functions very heavily on precedent.

You might want to read my post again - at no point do I go off into some crazy doomsday scenario. Everything I describe is logical.

Restricting games = restricting protected speech = leading to more precedent for further restricting protected speech. Simple and easy to understand when you're not trying to be "witty".

A slippery slope argument is the last refuge of a scoundrel - there's a bright line between restricting content to minors and restricting content for everybody else, and no reason to think that line will be passed. When it does, courts strike it down - see the 9-0 ACLU v. Reno. The scrutiny doctrines in first amendment law are designed to allow some restrictions without risking overbreadth of restraint.

There's every reason to believe that line will be passed - see the attempts at installing mandatory internet content filters in public libraries, for an interesting example.

For a more concrete example - Jefferson County Public Libaries, which I worked for back in 2002, was threatened to have their government funding cut if they did not install content filters. The filters were designed to "protect the children", but they were also heavily restricting adults as well.

Again - when you restrict the sales of videogames, which have no proven harmful or detrimental effect to minors, you unjustly and unfairly regulate protected speech. I see no difference in the government forbidding children from purchasing mature videogames and them preventing children from purchasing "mature" books.

I think the key point here is that the bill is going to arbitrarily restrict the sale of a form of speech/artistic expression without first going through the due diligence of proving that it is detrimental to the minors it is supposedly protecting.

Yeah, its pretty much common law at this point that children don't intrinsically get the rights in the constitution/bill of rights.

What you're thinking of is in schools, where the courts have allowed some curtailing of rights in the goal (or under the guise of, depending on your opinion) of enabling their education... I don't think curtailing children's rights outside of schools is a general phenomena, however.

No, you can't restrict speech, in any way. This law won't, either. Rockstar is perfectly within their rights to make any game they wish. They could even release a game specifically about rape simulation. However, if a community deems that material to be obscene, they can restrict the consumption of said material by minors.

Think of the actual effect of this law: games not for minors cannot be sold to minors without a parent accompanying them, and therefore parents cannot possibly blame videogames for their messed up kids.

I fully support this. As an adult I will still be able to buy whatever game I choose, but kids will find it harder to access the M material. This is very good for our hobby as it appeases the concerned parents, etc. without taking away my rights as an adult to play them.

I'm all for this. I don't see why people are claiming that it somehow restricts free speech when it does no such.

Please explain how the government telling people whose speech they may and may not consume does not limit free speech.

But it's not preventing people from "consuming speech". A kid can't buy a M rated game but he can still get it through his parents without any negative repercussions.

Are you 16 btw? Ashamed of bringing your mommy along to buy a game? Awwwwwww.

I'm 20, but if you want to make a mature argument instead of embarrassing yourself next time you're welcome to join the actual discussion that's going on.

But actual discussion has you continuing saying retarted things, so I had to aim lower. Doesn't change the thing I said before saying the retarded stuff. No one is actually prevented from viewing anything. You can still go to the store and buy the game for your kid and you won't be fined. The parents still have the final word on what their kids can view/listen/play even with this government policing.

I'll try to say less "retarted" things, and you try to be civil. Deal?

It's not a slippery slope, because that's how our legal system works. It functions very heavily on precedent.

You might want to read my post again - at no point do I go off into some crazy doomsday scenario. Everything I describe is logical.

Restricting games = restricting protected speech = leading to more precedent for further restricting protected speech. Simple and easy to understand when you're not trying to be "witty".

A slippery slope argument is the last refuge of a scoundrel - there's a bright line between restricting content to minors and restricting content for everybody else, and no reason to think that line will be passed. When it does, courts strike it down - see the 9-0 ACLU v. Reno. The scrutiny doctrines in first amendment law are designed to allow some restrictions without risking overbreadth of restraint.

There's every reason to believe that line will be passed - see the attempts at installing mandatory internet content filters in public libraries, for an interesting example.

For a more concrete example - Jefferson County Public Libaries, which I worked for back in 2002, was threatened to have their government funding cut if they did not install content filters. The filters were designed to "protect the children", but they were also heavily restricting adults as well.

Again - when you restrict the sales of videogames, which have no proven harmful or detrimental effect to minors, you unjustly and unfairly regulate protected speech. I see no difference in the government forbidding children from purchasing mature videogames and them preventing children from purchasing "mature" books.

What line will be passed? The case on point here is United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194. Libraries aren't obligated to give you pr0n on the internets, or give you any internet access. There's a big difference between the Communication Decency Act - which restricted CONTENT ON THE INTERNET - and the Federal provisions that tie library funding with internet filters. I don't like internet filters either, but you don't have a positive right to unfiltered internet content at a public library, any more than you have a right to any specific hardcopy content at a library. This is true even if the filter is going to catch up good things like breast cancer sites, because the library isn't obligated to offer you any websites in the first place.

That's a pretty clear-and-easy bright line standard, and the court made that distinction.

I'm all for it. There are simular laws restricting sale of rated R movies to minors right? The same should apply for games especially since the medium is so popular among them.

No, there are not. It's voluntary.

The government has no place regulating content that is protected under the First Amendment. At all.

Exactly, and that's why this is a terrible, terrible bill. Saying "oh, it's just like cigarettes and porn" is to classify video games as cigarettes or porn, and not a valid form of art and expression. At any rate, yes, this is just election year wankery and will be struck down by the courts, just like every single other version of this law.

We aren't classifying cigarettes and porn as the same as games. We are simply stating that "LIKE" them, kids shouldn't get into some of the mature game titles and it should be restricted. Art is a giant mess of a subject and just because someone calls it "art" it isn't always. Just because it's "art" doesn't mean it's not something that should be freely exhibited to children or whoever. I'm sure the porn industry considers what it does "art", but that doesn't mean stores should keep it next to the toys and not card those who purchase it.

Who will this bill affect?
Kids under 18 who want to buy a game that the industry has deemed they probably should not play.
Retailers who do not regulate themselves to keep from violating the ratings for a sale.

Who will this bill not affect?
Anyone over 18 (the majority of the purchasers of M rated games already?).
Retailers who have been policing themselves and following the ESRB.
The game industry.
Stupid parents who will purchase the games anyway.

Just like parents could buy porn and alcohol and cigarettes and give them to their kids, it won't stop bad parenting, but it will help the ESRB do what it is there to do.

Actually, the precedent of this sort of law will have ramifications for everyone involved. For starters, video games aren't like cigarettes or obsenity at all; creating a legal assumption that they are could easily lead to further legislation, if not in this industry then in movies and other mediums. It's not just illegal to sell cigarettes to minors, after all; it's illegal for minors to smoke. If we assume that video games are like cigarettes, etc., a law can easily be passed to make it illegal to let children play these games. After all, the outcry against video games aren't coming from unresponsible stores; it's coming from stupid parents who don't even notice the ratings. They'll still get little Johnny GTA, and they'll still raise an outcry, and politicians will still pander to them. If it becomes illegal to even let minors play the games, the potential lawsuits can discourage developers to even make the games. More importantly, stores can refuse to even carry M rated games to avoid the lawsuit, and that's even true if the second hypothetical law doesn't pass.
I hope you enjoyed those M rated games, because you won't be getting any more of them for a few decades if this shit sticks.

And even if this doomsday scenario doesn't happen, it hurts the business from an artistic level. This law creates the assumption that video games aren't art; an assumption that people here are even saying. Saying "most games aren't art" is inherently, completely, and objectively wrong for at least two decades. If it remains a mainstream, then games designers can't get artistic games made, and designers won't be attracted to the industry to make art. It will reduce the quality of the entire medium.

Finally, the ESRB will respond to this sort of law, should they pass, by becoming even more strict, since for all intents of purpose they will have the power of law behind them. We usually compare AO games to pornography, but often that's not the case. Look at San Andreas; it's "AO" game is tamer than your average R rated sex scene. Make them the authority and all parental outcry will be aimed right at them, forcing them to get stricter to avoid lawsuits themselves.

EmperorSeth on May 2008

You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.

I fully support this. As an adult I will still be able to buy whatever game I choose, but kids will find it harder to access the M material. This is very good for our hobby as it appeases the concerned parents, etc. without taking away my rights as an adult to play them.

Really, can we cut the "this doesn't affect me so I'm ok with it" stuff already? If they tried to pass a law that wouldn't let anyone under 18 into a library I'd still be pretty pissed about it, as I hope any adult with half a brain would.

I'm of the belief that video games do not make bloodthirsty murderers.

I'm also of the belief that the choice belongs to the parent, not me, nor the government.

I'm also of the belief that this will go down in flames because it is based on an arbitrary, non gov't enforced rating system, and that such a law will never go into effect until atleast one is drafted that covers ALL forms of media, not just video games.

I'm all for this. I don't see why people are claiming that it somehow restricts free speech when it does no such.

Please explain how the government telling people whose speech they may and may not consume does not limit free speech.

But it's not preventing people from "consuming speech". A kid can't buy a M rated game but he can still get it through his parents without any negative repercussions.

Are you 16 btw? Ashamed of bringing your mommy along to buy a game? Awwwwwww.

I'm 20, but if you want to make a mature argument instead of embarrassing yourself next time you're welcome to join the actual discussion that's going on.

But actual discussion has you continuing saying retarted things, so I had to aim lower. Doesn't change the thing I said before saying the retarded stuff. No one is actually prevented from viewing anything. You can still go to the store and buy the game for your kid and you won't be fined. The parents still have the final word on what their kids can view/listen/play even with this government policing.

I'll try to say less "retarted" things, and you try to be civil. Deal?

Uh ok, since you don't bother answering I'll copy/paste the same thing again!!

No one is actually prevented from viewing anything. You can still go to the store and buy the game for your kid and you won't be fined. The parents still have the final word on what their kids can view/listen/play even with this government policing. So tell me now, is speech truly blocked?

St. Louis County passed an ordinance banned selling or renting violent video games to minors, or permitting them to play such games, without parental consent, and video game dealers sued to overturn the law. The Court of Appeals found the ordinance unconstitutional, holding that depictions of violence alone cannot fall within the legal definition of obscenity for either minors or adults, and that a government cannot silence protected speech for children by wrapping itself in the cloak of parental authority. The Court ordered the lower court to enter an injunction barring enforcement of the law, citing the Supreme Court's recognition in Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 213-14, 45 L. Ed. 2d 125, 95 S. Ct. 2268 (1975) that "speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."

Uh...it is very possible to transmit a message in a carton of cigarettes or a bottle of beer - it's called product advertising and trade dress. That's why we restrict how people that sell cigarettes and alcohol can market their products. That's RESTRICTING COMMERCIAL SPEECH. You ever heard of Joe Camel?

Let me reiterate: guns, cars, cigarettes, and alcohol all have immediate heath affects, like death (except in the case of cigarettes). The physical objects, not the marketing campaigns. In this case commercial speech is put through the clear and present danger test. Exploiting a kid's emotions to get them to buy their deadly addictive product could be compared to yelling fire in a crowded theater. As of yet, games do not present an immediate physical threat.

St. Louis County passed an ordinance banned selling or renting violent video games to minors, or permitting them to play such games, without parental consent, and video game dealers sued to overturn the law. The Court of Appeals found the ordinance unconstitutional, holding that depictions of violence alone cannot fall within the legal definition of obscenity for either minors or adults, and that a government cannot silence protected speech for children by wrapping itself in the cloak of parental authority. The Court ordered the lower court to enter an injunction barring enforcement of the law, citing the Supreme Court's recognition in Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 213-14, 45 L. Ed. 2d 125, 95 S. Ct. 2268 (1975) that "speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."

I'm all for this. I don't see why people are claiming that it somehow restricts free speech when it does no such.

Please explain how the government telling people whose speech they may and may not consume does not limit free speech.

But it's not preventing people from "consuming speech". A kid can't buy a M rated game but he can still get it through his parents without any negative repercussions.

Are you 16 btw? Ashamed of bringing your mommy along to buy a game? Awwwwwww.

I'm 20, but if you want to make a mature argument instead of embarrassing yourself next time you're welcome to join the actual discussion that's going on.

But actual discussion has you continuing saying retarted things, so I had to aim lower. Doesn't change the thing I said before saying the retarded stuff. No one is actually prevented from viewing anything. You can still go to the store and buy the game for your kid and you won't be fined. The parents still have the final word on what their kids can view/listen/play even with this government policing.

I'll try to say less "retarted" things, and you try to be civil. Deal?

Uh ok, since you don't bother answering I'll copy/paste the same thing again!!

No one is actually prevented from viewing anything. You can still go to the store and buy the game for your kid and you won't be fined. The parents still have the final word on what their kids can view/listen/play even with this government policing. So tell me now, is speech truly blocked?

Studies have shown basically that violent video game content has little to no effect on children, and no one likes it when the g'ment intrudes on something it has no business regulating.

Also I think that this is one example of industry regulating itself that actually works. Kids get carded all the time, even at places like Wal-Mart. It's all built into the POS! Hell I bet that more kids are able to buy tickets to R rated movies than buy a copy of Diablo II.

No one is actually prevented from viewing anything. You can still go to the store and buy the game for your kid and you won't be fined. The parents still have the final word on what their kids can view/listen/play even with this government policing. So tell me now, is speech truly blocked?

This isn't the issue here. Although this proposed legislation doesn't fully stop games from being sold, the issue is setting up a legal precedent which in the future could set up laws which actually restrict speech.

St. Louis County passed an ordinance banned selling or renting violent video games to minors, or permitting them to play such games, without parental consent, and video game dealers sued to overturn the law. The Court of Appeals found the ordinance unconstitutional, holding that depictions of violence alone cannot fall within the legal definition of obscenity for either minors or adults, and that a government cannot silence protected speech for children by wrapping itself in the cloak of parental authority. The Court ordered the lower court to enter an injunction barring enforcement of the law, citing the Supreme Court's recognition in Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 213-14, 45 L. Ed. 2d 125, 95 S. Ct. 2268 (1975) that "speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."

St. Louis County passed an ordinance banned selling or renting violent video games to minors, or permitting them to play such games, without parental consent, and video game dealers sued to overturn the law. The Court of Appeals found the ordinance unconstitutional, holding that depictions of violence alone cannot fall within the legal definition of obscenity for either minors or adults, and that a government cannot silence protected speech for children by wrapping itself in the cloak of parental authority. The Court ordered the lower court to enter an injunction barring enforcement of the law, citing the Supreme Court's recognition in Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 213-14, 45 L. Ed. 2d 125, 95 S. Ct. 2268 (1975) that "speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."

Just lock the thread now. This is the answer to everything that we could possibly rehash over the next 10 pages.

No, no, no - look at the case law I cited a few pages ago. The real issue is whether the material counts as obscene - here, the law was just "violent" video games versus "M" video games, and whether the legislature went through the required findings about harmfulness to minors. If you watn to read the case this broadly, then having MPAA movie ratings would be unconstitutional too, and they're clearly constitutional.

How easily people remember Custer's Revenge, as it existed before the ESRB was created and was - as far as I know - explicitly sold to adults, making it completely irrelevant to the bill at hand.

And now we're debating whether or not the US government should have the power to legally enforce a voluntary ratings system? Beyond the lunancy of having the video game industry the only medium with a government-enforced rating system (that is: movies, music, books, magazines - all are voluntarily withheld by the seller/provider), there's the fact that there's been no conclusive study showing a detrimental effect of video games on minors.

[Yes, there were the crazy psychologists who had adolescents play violent games and then see how hard they hit something or how long they shocked something which is idiotic because the same response is going to be elicited by anything causing an increase in released adrenaline, which is proven to be short term. And there's also that other study that shows that they're a modern medium for male bonding and social aptitude, but pfft to both of them.]

In addition to that this could likely have two alternate repercussions: companies don't bother having their games rated by the ESRB; or the government requires that the games are rated.

How about we just agree that stores should voluntarily stop selling M-rated games to minors, just like they voluntarily don't sell R-rated movies or music with 'explicit lyrics'? This is on the way to letting the goverment do the parenting for lazy adults and lax retailers. It is not, and should not be within the government's jurisdiction.

(Nevermind crazier arguments about the validity of the ESRB's rating system or any flaws within it.)

UltimaGecko on May 2008

The facehuggers want to play with you in the AvP LP. Facehuggers also want you to check out the TF2 cards here. View the in-progress RE mansion recreation for L4D here.

St. Louis County passed an ordinance banned selling or renting violent video games to minors, or permitting them to play such games, without parental consent, and video game dealers sued to overturn the law. The Court of Appeals found the ordinance unconstitutional, holding that depictions of violence alone cannot fall within the legal definition of obscenity for either minors or adults, and that a government cannot silence protected speech for children by wrapping itself in the cloak of parental authority. The Court ordered the lower court to enter an injunction barring enforcement of the law, citing the Supreme Court's recognition in Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 213-14, 45 L. Ed. 2d 125, 95 S. Ct. 2268 (1975) that "speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."

Just lock the thread now. This is the answer to everything that we could possibly rehash over the next 10 pages.

If that was federal law, I'd agree. It isn't, its a state ruling.

Look at my other response for an explanation of why this is different and that quote misstates what went on. It's a federal ruling - it's the 8th Circuit Federal Court, because the county ordinance affected the federal First Amendment. But it doesn't give as much traction as people think it does.

kaliyama on May 2008

0

CheesecakeRecipe"Should not be allowed to post in the Steam Thread" - IsornSqualor Victoria, Squalor Victoria!Registered Userregular

Really, can we cut the "this doesn't affect me so I'm ok with it" stuff already? If they tried to pass a law that wouldn't let anyone under 18 into a library I'd still be pretty pissed about it, as I hope any adult with half a brain would.

I am of the thought that these peole who say "It doesn't affect me, get it over with" are about as harmful to the situation as the parents who buy the M rated games for their kids because it will prevent further nagging from the children.

If carding at movie theaters is voluntary, then so should video games.

Movie theaters have demonstrated their ability to do this and enforce it. Video game outlets have not.

It doesn't help presenting video games as the same media as movies if they are segregated by rules like this. If you want people to treat video games like TV and movies, then they should keep the same laws.

And was your reason really that movie theaters don't need rules because they all volunteer; video game outlets need rules because they DON'T volunteer? Doesn't that defeat the concept of volunteering? THe joke name my old workplace used for that was voluntold.